JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5th November, 1985 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp Jaipur. The only argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioner is that the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is excessive in view of the fact that there is no previous conviction on record against the accused. 2. That four Matkas of fermented wash were recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner. The sample was taken at the spot, was sealed and was sent to Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner in his report Ex. P.8 found that the wash contained 80.54 per cent under proof ethyle alcohal. The accused was tried by the learned Magistrate, who found the accused guilty and vide his judgment dated September 9, 1983 sentenced the accused-petitioner under section 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has confirmed the conviction and sentence. 3. The accused was found in possession of fermented wash. The wash is a material which is used for the purpose of manufacturing an excisable article. Therefore, the accused committed an offence punishable under section 54 (d) of the Act of 1950. Under Proviso to section 54 (d) if a person is found in possession of workable-still for the manufacture of any excisable article or is found to be in possession of an excisable article in contravention of the provision of the Act or of any order made or of any licence or pass granted, he will be punished with the minimum sentence for six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. Thus the minimum sentence is only prescribed for possessing a workable-still or for possessing any excisable article for sale or selling article. Possession of fermented wash material for the purpose of manufacturing an excisable article cannot be said to be possession of a workable still. Therefore, the proviso is not attracted in this case and it is not a case where a minimum sentence prescribed under the proviso should be awarded. 4. An offence u/s 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 is punishable with imprisonment of either described which may extend to two-three years and with fine may extend to Rs. 200/-. Therefore, the proviso is not attracted in this case and it is not a case where a minimum sentence prescribed under the proviso should be awarded. 4. An offence u/s 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 is punishable with imprisonment of either described which may extend to two-three years and with fine may extend to Rs. 200/-. This case is going on since 1977. The trial of the case took about six years. The appeal thereafter took another two years. The accused is in Jail since November 5, 1985. He was arrested on 9th April, 1977 and was ordered to be released on bail by the Magistrate on 11th April, 1977. Thus, before the charge-sheet was filed the accused has remained in police custody for another three years. Thus looking to the protracted trial and nature the allegation and the quantity of wash and the sentence of 30 days which the accused has undergone in my opinion the sentence undergone by the accused shall meet the ends of justice. 5. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioner section 54(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, the accused is sentenced to sentence already undergone. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Revision partly allowed. *******